On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 04:15:11PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > > I am a user of many non-free Debian packages and a maintainer of
> > > > one, tth. In an ideal world all non-free software would have free
> > > > equivalents and there would be no need for non-free. Debian subjects
> > > > non-free packages to two restrictions:
> > >
> > > There are no non-free Debian packages, because non-free packages are
> > > not part of Debian. We happen to provide a place for them on the
> > > servers, that's all.
> >
> > Yeah, whatever, they're there, and you're not helping with pointless
> > GNU-like phraseology rants. :P
>
> Hold on a sec. If the fact that non-free packages are not part of
> Debian is a bit of "pointless phraseology", then that sounds like you
> are saying that Debian *really* consists of both free and non-free,
> regardless of what "ranting phraseology" we happen to use.
>
> I'm inclined to agree with you, but that means that we are violating
> the Social Contract.
>
> The *only* grounds for permitting non-free at all associated
> officially with Debian is that it is *not* part of Debian, and that
> this is a *real* distinction and not a mere phraseological rant.
My point above was that we shouldn't go out of our way to prevent non-free
packages from using the buildd infrastructure just because they're not free,
and that seemed to be the place you were going with that comment -- "they
aren't a part of main, so as far as we're concerned there doesn't have to be
any discussion about this, they might as well all rot to death".
If we provide these packages, and we do, and it says so in the Social
Contract, then we should do it right, and let these packages into
testing->stable like the others, without additional hurdles like requiring
10 recompiled .debs and yet without any buildds.
Now, whether someone is willing to code the support in the buildds, that's a
different, mostly technical problem...
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.